= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sark comments on The Gift We Give To Tomorrow - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (97)
The point was, instead, that a (not even demonstrated, remember) statistical correlation is not enough to show that a marked sexual dimorphism was the cause. There's this thing called culture, you see...
My point was that there is no need for sexual dimorphism in the case of sexually selected cognitive performances. And to be clear, music did not evolve specifically for the purpose of courtship display. But anything that tracks fitness will be seized upon by sexual selection, and amplified. It is well acknowledged that sexual selection is very sensitive to initial conditions, a notable one being existing perceptual biases.
Hm, that's pretty reasonable.
I'm wondering why you think this: I don't think it's right. Music seems to be clearly a courtship signal. I'm guessing it was the other way around: it started as a courtship signal and was amplified by other human processes, becoming more than that as human societies developed it.
Hmm you are right. I wasn't sure what I was saying there!
Maybe I meant it was in some significant prototypical form as some byproduct of our auditory processing and etcetera before it was 'captured' and amplified by sexual selection.
It's curious how so much culture can be built upon the contents of courtship displays.